Ooh come on Kyle!
I've been away - no internet and a TV with an iffy red button! Just about managed to find out that Kyle had won yesterday - so pleased!
The H2H is 1-0 in Johnson's favour, having beaten Kyle in the Aus Open 2015. I remember thinking that Kyle had a good shout that day, but Johnson's victory was pretty comprehensive, winning 6-4 6-4 6-3.
Let's hope Kyle gets his own back this time. I've no doubt both players have come a long way since then.
Points accepted you don't like doubles and therefore it should only be reportedly independently or not at all, you think any tournament containing players outside the worlds top 30 should be called Challengers.
By definition we should call the first three rounds of each grand slam the challenger rounds or the challenger week.
These appear to be fixed firmly held beliefs. I think we just have to park them so to speak.
To be fair, what kind of showing would you expect the week before a slam? A better field would be encouraged if it wasn't the week before. Even Kyle himself wasn't going to play but found himself lacking matches so here we are.
If the seeds in a Grand Slam are Slam players (and surely, in linguistic terms, they must be, as they're seeded, so how could they not...).
And all the players after 32 are supposedly challenger players, then who are the ATP players? Is there some black hole?
(Unless, only the top 10 are 'true' Slam players. And 11 - 32 are ATP players. But then you've got a Slam draw of 128 with only 10 'Slam players', which makes no sense).
Anyway, names, and roses, and Shakespeare and all that......